that's just silly. the audience for such camera is not those that care about crappy high ISO images done under crappy light with crappy dynamic range that is associated with high ISO values. the audience for this camera are light lovers. people that shoot in studio or landscape with buckets of beautiful light and not the inside of their closets with the lights off. I'd much rather see LOWER ISO capabilites. how about ISO25 for a change and 14+ stops of DR. The D800 already proved that downsampling big MP to 22MP more than matches what the 5DmkIII can do in low light, so who cares for more? If so, don't buy it. Stupid high ISO can be hand with the 1DX if that's your boat. I see no reason that every camera has to chase the ISO values as if that was the only priority.http://mansurovs.com/nikon-d800-review#iso_performance(click next at the bottom to see the D800 match the 5DmkIII at high ISO)

The religion of low light is honestly getting old. We need to move past that. this is after all PHOTOGRAPHY, not DARKography.

+1 I use my MK III as my ultrawide with a 14L and 16 - 35L and as a back up for my Pentax 645D. The maximum ISO for the 645D is 1600. It is the highest ISO for any current medium format camera. I shoot predominantly landscape and the Pentax is brilliant for that with it's 9 point AF which is also more than any other medium format camera. Hassie and the Leica S2 have a single point AF system.

On the Canon front, I'd like to see a slightly higher mp and I was disappointed that the mk III 'only' had 22.3. I think somewhere around 30mp and really nailing everything down would be the way to go, not to create a 40mp on a 35mm sensor to compound other issues further. As it is, I am enjoying using the mk III, and it is my main camera at the moment as my Pentax is in Japan being fixed after it had an argument with a paving slab. (it didn't lose it badly, just a few bruises).

The new higher mp camera for me needn't have anything above say 3200 ISO. I rarely use anything around this. But by maximum 3200, I mean completely clean 3200. In my vision it would be a landscaper's camera. The only thing I have used high ISO for are a few urban scenes and macro where a tripod would have been of no assistance.

Logged

takoman46

There’s a big price gap between the 5D Mark III at $3500 and the 1D X at $6799 that I think needs filled. APS-H is dead, so something has to go in there around $4500-$5000. Judging by the initial sales of the 5D Mark III, people are willing to pay a lot of money for high end digital SLRs.

What?!!!

Jesus Christ!

The best way to inform Canon that we will pay them as much as they want, is bidding prices like this, as we did for 5d mk3 past years, which is why it costs so much now. Don't think that Canon staff don't follow forums. They do. Oh yes, they do!

$5000 for high-res body?! That would be insane! $3500 for mk3 are already excessive compared to what d800 offers. Anything above that would be just idiotic for non-1D(s) body.

I suppose any type of product manufacturer would pay some attention to what their consumers write on forums since forums are a good source for market research.

I would think that a high megapixel body priced around the $5000 price point would mean that it would be a high megapixel body that would have massive advantages over Nikon's D800. I'd expect that it would be a full size body probably dubbed "1~something". That would justify the price point. It's entirely possible for it to be a compact body but thinking about $5000... it would make more sense to be an addition to Canon's flagship line.

Lastly, I don't think $3500 was excessive in comparison to Nikon's D800. Granted the 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 are directed towards completely different markets. I don't get why everyone is still trying to justify one camera over the other... For me, coming from a 5D Mark II; I am very pleased with the improvements in the Mark III and can understand why there was a price jump. I'm not directing this at you StORM48, but as far as I know, everyone who bought a Mark III, including myself feels that it was worth it. In other words I wouldn't trade the performance of the Mark III for the megapixels of a D800 just to save $500. So if Canon is using the 1Dx and 5D Mark III as their bench mark for performance combined with image quality, then I can totally understand how a possible high megapixel body might cost $5000. I might not want to buy it for $5000 since I don't need more than what is currently available from Canon... but I would be able to rationalize the increase in price.

There’s a big price gap between the 5D Mark III at $3500 and the 1D X at $6799 that I think needs filled. APS-H is dead, so something has to go in there around $4500-$5000. Judging by the initial sales of the 5D Mark III, people are willing to pay a lot of money for high end digital SLRs.

What?!!!

Jesus Christ!

The best way to inform Canon that we will pay them as much as they want, is bidding prices like this, as we did for 5d mk3 past years, which is why it costs so much now. Don't think that Canon staff don't follow forums. They do. Oh yes, they do!

$5000 for high-res body?! That would be insane! $3500 for mk3 are already excessive compared to what d800 offers. Anything above that would be just idiotic for non-1D(s) body.

But you must understand! Canon has many expenses. Do you know how much it costs to forget to seal the top LCD so as to allow the light to reach the metering sensor in a way that it may or it may not affect the metering so as to create a controversy? (see other threads)

I think it's inaccurate to say people are willing to pay a lot of money for a high end DSLR. I think most people were disgusted by the price of the 5D Mark III but needed something better than the AF in the 5D Mark II so sadly we bent over and took it . Willing had nothing to do with it.

takoman46

I think it's inaccurate to say people are willing to pay a lot of money for a high end DSLR. I think most people were disgusted by the price of the 5D Mark III but needed something better than the AF in the 5D Mark II so sadly we bent over and took it . Willing had nothing to do with it.

Well if you did buy it, then wouldn't that be considered "willing" to spend the money on it? Nobody was forcing you right? I can see that you may have felt cornered in order to keep up with the market. But it was ultimately each person's decision right?

Logged

canon rumors FORUM

Canon had few years to develop an improved sensor for 5d3. It is almost the same as 5d2 in major and important aspects, no big step forward in this regard. If canon is not able to develop a 22mp sensor with ie. better DR, personally I dont think they are able to catch a good quality at 40 mp. It seems there is a strong limitation for canon engineers otherwise they would deliver something really better at 22 mp. If it is possible to create a sensor with 36mp with a DR over 14ev it should be possible for 22 mp as well, isn't it?

Logged

5D3, 35L, 85 1.8, 135L, 24-70L, 70-200L IS II, 580 EX II.

Neeneko

that's just silly. the audience for such camera is not those that care about crappy high ISO images done under crappy light with crappy dynamic range that is associated with high ISO values. the audience for this camera are light lovers. people that shoot in studio or landscape with buckets of beautiful light and not the inside of their closets with the lights off.

This was my general thought.

Such a new body appeals to me, I rarely shoot at above 200ISO. Most of the 'down sides' people list don't really impact me, but the high MP is appealing.

Well, seeing as Nikon have just released their ENTRY level D3200 as a 24 MP APS-C camera, I believe this might send some (more?) ripples Canon's way regarding 'Big Megapixel' cameras (whether APS-C or FF).

Not that I require a high megapixel count to keep me happy (I currently have 18 MP with my 7D, and 18 MP is sufficient for me, still very handy for cropping, etc). Give me more improvements in image quality (higher DR, less noise at all ISOs, etc).

Let's see! I'm still loving photography... spending lots of time outdoors with my 7D capturing things from birds to sunsets to friends to macros to landscapes with my range of quality lenses.

Interesting times..... Regards all

Paul

Logged

I'm not a brand-fanatic. What I do appreciate is using my 7D and 350D cameras along with a host of lenses & many accessories to capture quality photos, and share with friends.

seta666

The thing is that Sony sensors (so nikon and Pentax too) have put canon sensor technology to same in the last few years. I am sure 5D mkIII will score less in DR and ISO once those results are published in DXOmark. And I am just talking about sensors, not the whole of the camera. Some people may argue thay DXOmark only review RAW sensor data which in my opinion these days is as important it was to have good film before; Sony sensors sponsor now the best " digital film " while canon sell cameras with cheap " no brand" film.

I own a 5D mkII and one thing the 5D lack is DR, I wish it had 1-2 stops better performance (As those APS-C Sony NEX cameras). No need to talk about the 18 mpx APS-C sensor, which seems a toy compared to those sony's.

I am not going to swith to nikon because so far the best full frame camera for macro is the EOS 5D mkII (Also most APS-C digic 4 and MkIII I guess) because of the way silent live view is implemented but Sony nex cameras behave the same now, there is even a NEX to EOS adapter (400$)so MP-E 65mm can be used on a NEX

If Canon release a high pixel count FF camera with 5D ergonomics I guess it will be priced like the 5D, otherwise many people will switch to Nikon

Granted the 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 are directed towards completely different markets. I don't get why everyone is still trying to justify one camera over the other... For me, coming from a 5D Mark II; I am very pleased with the improvements in the Mark III and can understand why there was a price jump. [...] In other words I wouldn't trade the performance of the Mark III for the megapixels of a D800 just to save $500.

It appears that the Nikon (Sony) sensors are delivering significantly better dynamic range; for me the price of the 5D3 would be much more acceptable if the sensor wasn't like a generation back in this respect.

The other issue is that I got the 5D2 for landscapes and studio, the best choice for the price at the time; of course the 5D3 doesn't do anything worse than the 5D2, but compared to the D800 the situation is suddenly reversed:

The 5D3 is a very well rounded wedding/street/journalist/(sport) camera, and the D800 would be my first choice for landscape and studio. If it weren't for all the Ls in my cupboard...

What I'm seriously wondering: Is the inferior sensor technology just a temporary "one horse pulling ahead, then the other", or is this the first step of Canon being left behind due to inferior engineering and/or less economy of scale compared to Sony.

(To use the analogy of 3D video cards for computers, is Canon a Matrox or 3dfx, or are they an ATI or Nvidia?)